People who are proud of getting a good deal via an app break my heart. Most folks I know like that are not strapped for cash. They just like the feeling of getting a bargain. They don’t consider that the prices are artificially inflated. They don’t need the sale item. And in the long run they’ll probably end up paying more when the stores know their purchasing habits and have A/B tested them enough to know how to provide as little as possible while charging as much as a customer can stomach.
If a coupon requires an app, I don’t by that item. Especially when it comes to groceries. When it comes to store cards, most let you use a phone number instead of scanning the card. So plug in a random number at checkout. You can often get a hit on the first try. Then pay in cash. Dirty up someone else’s data and give these stores nothing on you. Seriously, if people keep giving in, it’s guaranteed to get worse. First the store card, then the app, what’s next?
Most folks I know like that are not strapped for cash.
Whoa. What group do you run in? Literally everyone I talk to on a daily basis is.
I actually just thought through an average day, and the people I talk to regularly. I’ve had conversations with each and every one of them over the past few months about how we’ve had to make major changes to our lifestyles in one way or another because the money is going out faster than it’s coming in. We’re all solidly middle-class, for whatever that means anymore.
So what circles are you in where not everyone is looking for every possible discount they can get? Saving $5 on groceries means I can afford another gallon and a half of gas. I can’t afford to be principled about privacy when those are the stakes. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
For sure, but like…I’m a middle-aged software engineer in a low cost-of-living area. My parents always had enough on one income, but we’re struggling on two.
I’m similar, but probably a bit younger. I make a good salary now (I’m in a leadership position), but the people on my team are a bit more “average.” Software engineering will have a higher than average salary, but I’m talking $80-120k for the people who work for me in an area where the median income is $70-80k ($80-120k), and most are single or single-income.
There’s a pretty stark difference between those who are financially stable and those who… aren’t. I don’t have everyone’s salary, but here’s what I see:
financially stable - drive older car, own house, wardrobe is simple, hobbies are inexpensive, no extravagent trips
financially unstable - drive late model car, rent, nicer clothes, more expensive hobbies, yearly international trips
Notice I didn’t say anything about income. Some of the financially unstable people have a much higher income (probably double the range above), and some of the financially stable people have a much lower income (e.g. one of my employees is single and just bought a house in a pricier area, while being at the bottom of the income range).
I obviously don’t know your income or situation, but I think most people can do much better than they are without changing their income. And the more financially stable you can be, the more “quiet” confidence you get (i.e. you’re not distracted by when payday is), and the more likely you are to get that promotion or better paying job. Success tends to breed success.
Check out The Millionaire Next Door, which gives lots of examples about how wealthy people tend to be frugal and careful with money. There’s not really any secret sauce here, just delayed gratification and discipline. Obviously a $100k salary will go a bit further than a $50k salary, but even a median income can rocket you to an upper-middle class/lower-upper class retirement if you manage it carefully. I’m happy to walk through a scenario if you like, but that’s a bit off-topic for this community and is probably better for one of the PF communities.
That makes a ton of sense. To add some numbers to it:
$1k in the bank - should be enough for any one emergency
1 month e-fund - no longer impacted by payday being late
3 month e-fund
Getting to step 1 can be very difficult, especially for the lower class, but $10 or $20 at a time can get there. But it needs to be intentional, and that’s really hard when working two (or three) jobs, so many just don’t put in the consistent effort needed to get there. But once that first buffer is there, the rest becomes a lot easier since you’re no longer getting pushed backwards.
I disagree strongly that $1k is enough for any one emergency. My healthcare deductible is higher than that. The last two times I’ve needed car repairs, the bill was $2-3k to get the thing back on the road. If one of our appliances breaks down, we might be able to replace it for $1,000 if it’s the dryer or the dishwasher, but if it’s the fridge, that’s not close to enough.
$1,000 was plenty when I was in college back in the mid-00s, but I was single with no kids. That’s just not a realistic emergency fund in 2024, and even less so if you have a family.
I never said it would definitely cover all emergencies, but it should cover most emergencies. For example:
car issue - usually $400-1000 - my last FE strut replacement cost $800-900, and that’s on the more expensive end (certainly wouldn’t handle engine work though)
washing machine/dishwasher/refrigerator dies - new one costs a few hundred, maybe slightly more (my fridge this year cost ~$1300, cheaper options exist)
surprise funeral of a loved one - plane tickets/gas and a hotel for a couple nights should be under $1k
It’s not going to solve everything, but it’s a nice milestone that means you can weather most emergencies, provided they come one at a time. The goal here isn’t to guarantee that you’re safe from everything (nobody should stop at this step), but to protect you from most of the small things that would otherwise go to debt.
If we raise the bar too high, people will get discouraged and give up. $1k is a pretty decent goal and can do a lot of good.
And it fucking SUCKS in the beginning, because for a very long time it keeps getting wiped out by emergencies. But the more emergencies you weather, eventually the fewer you’ll have, and your buffer will grow.
Emergency funds are the most important tool for financial stability (after securing a living wage).
Honestly, what you see isn’t familiar to me at all. The people I know are very good at being frugal and wringing the last out of every dime, not being extravagant or frivolous, etc. We have no car payment on our ten-year-old minivan, own our home, and haven’t been clothes shopping in years except to replace things that wear out, that sort of thing.
The problem isn’t budgeting; we have a budget, and we stick to it pretty well. There are very few things we could cut, and doing so might save us a hundred or so dollars per month. The problem is that inflation has eaten up every dollar from my paycheck we used to have in surplus. The problem is that my salary hasn’t kept up with inflation and nobody else around here is hiring.
Yes, you can budget yourself from the top of one financial class into the bottom of another one; and you can manage money poorly enough to drop from anywhere to the bottom of the heap. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a significant financial crunch happening for most people in the world right now.
Seems like everyone has their own preferred explanation as to why that’s happening (corporate greed vs. government overreach), but the fact that it’s happening seems pretty clear.
Yes, that certainly is a problem. Salary increases tend to lag inflation a bit, so you’d either need to switch jobs or wait to get caught up.
That said, wage growth has exceeded inflation for the last year and a half or so, so hopefully you’ll get a yearly salary bump to help out. Our salary bump was higher than usual last year (about 5%), but still below inflation (8-9%), and I hope our salary bump this year will fix that (4% would be enough to catch back up).
But the fact that you’ve been able to stay financially stable despite high inflation means you’re probably closer to “The Millionaire Next Door” than the average Joe drowning in credit card debt. If you can stay out of debt and put money away for retirement every month, you’ll be doing fine in your 60s when you’re looking at retirement.
you can budget yourself from the top of one financial class into the bottom of another one
Sure, if you follow the average advice (save 10%), then yeah, one bump-up is essentially expected. But if you’re more aggressive, jumping up more than one level should be feasible.
This video talks about economic classes, and the portion I linked shows how you can go from $65k/year salary (middle middle class) to lower upper class by age 50 by just investing 10% of your income. So this is essentially middle middle-class to lower-upper class. If you do 40 years instead of stopping at 50, you’d have $3M by retirement age. If we account for 2% inflation, you’d have about $1.7M in today’s dollars, which is almost to upper upper class. If you bump to 15% of your income, you end up with $2.6M after taking inflation into account, which is in that upper upper class range. So with just a median household salary, you can have an upper upper class retirement.
“Class” is determined by income, “enough” is determined by spending habits. You could make $50k and have positive cash flow, or you could make $400k and always be strapped for cash. The higher your income is, the more options you have, but also the more exposure you have to more ways to waste your money.
lower class ($34k median income, $3400 net worth) - ~25% of population - these are those who truly struggle with emergencies, and flirt w/ the federal poverty line; net worth is pretty much nothing (often negative!); main goal is get an emergency fund to break the cycle of poverty
middle class - three categories (lower, middle, upper)
lower ($44k median income, $71k net worth) - ~20% population - identify more with middle-middle class and tend to get into more debt than necessary by keeping up with the Joneses, and could be financially stable w/ some discipline
middle ($81k median income, $159k net worth) - ~20% - financially stable, most of assets are in home
upper ($117k median income, $307k net worth) - ~20% - passive income and compound interest supplement income; some live paycheck-to-paycheck due to lifestyle inflation, but some can do really well with investments
upper class - two categories (lower and upper)
lower ($189k median income, $747k net worth) - ~10% - specialized professions; most people can get into the lower upper class with discipline (10% savings rate on $65k salary => $787k investments by age 50); little pressure from everyday expenses
upper ($378k median income, $2.5M net worth) - ~5% - some college grads working as employees, but a lot of these are business owners
At each level, I see two types of people:
lower class
savers - those who scrimp to be able to cover emergencies that would otherwise screw them over; these can move up to the middle class
“normies” - those who get screwed over and over and stay in the lower class
middle class
savers - less scrimping here, but need to budget and avoid “keeping up with the Joneses”; some discipline can establish a solid retirement
“normies” - debt payments prevent any kind of progression, and workers are terrified of job loss because the house of cards could come tumbling down
upper class
savers - become really wealthy (upper upper class)
“normies” - some upper class folks are “strapped for cash” because they can’t keep their spending in check, but most have enough income to recover from even the worst mistakes
By this metric, not being strapped for cash is possible for pretty much anyone in the lower-middle class and above, and even those in the lower class could get there by stabilizing their finances so they can take some risks to increase their income (i.e. night school, quitting a bad job for a better job, getting CDL and financing a truck, etc). On the flipside, being strapped for cash is also quite possible at pretty much any income level, and I’ve heard plenty of stories about lawyers and doctors having trouble keeping up with debt payments because they got caught trying to keep up with those wealthier than them.
So I don’t think “strapped for cash” is a good metric for economic class, income is, because you can make choices that can cause you to be paycheck-to-paycheck at almost any income level, as well as choices to maintain stability at almost any income level.
Add the 1% there. Generational wealth people. Private jets, multiple mansion homes, etc. They’re far above the upper class. Totally different plane of existence from everyone else.
not being strapped for cash is possible for pretty much anyone in the lower-middle class and above, and even those in the lower class could get there by stabilizing their finances so they can take some risks to increase their income (i.e. night school, quitting a bad job for a better job, getting CDL and financing a truck, etc).
It’s easy to say “stabilize your finances!” but on a practical level it’s almost impossible to do when there’s no wiggle room. You can’t stabilize any finances if you’re taking out payday loans in order to pay rent every month. It’s not like there’s any money to be put into savings if you’re making $2,000 a month but putting $1,000 toward rent, since most people rather like to eat.
I’m thankful to not be in that situation, personally, but it’s not something you can just wish your way out of. Even your examples require a certain level of financial breathing room that people don’t tend to have when every dollar is spoken for. You can’t finance a truck if your DTI is already high. You can’t take CDL training or night school if you have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table.
I’ve heard plenty of stories about lawyers and doctors having trouble keeping up with debt payments because they got caught trying to keep up with those wealthier than them.
But if you get into that scenario, you can just sell the supercar or downsize your house or whatever. That’s not really an option for people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
So I don’t think “strapped for cash” is a good metric for economic class, income is,
I think income divided by local cost-of-living could be, maybe.
At the end of the day, irresponsibility with money is still a problem for sure. And keeping-up-with-the-joneses is probably a problem for some people. I’m not one of them, and none of the people I know are either, but I suppose some people have that issue. In my experience, though, most people who are struggling financially are not in those situations. They’re just trying to keep their heads above water.
You can’t stabilize any finances if you’re taking out payday loans in order to pay rent every month
Oh, I 100% agree. But in many cases, taking payday loans is a symptom of other serious problems in someone’s spending patterns and not necessarily an income problem. Maybe the car payment is too high, or perhaps they’re paying too much for food. Whatever it is, that needs to get fixed to end the need for emergency cash.
If you’re in the lower middle class or higher, there’s no excuse for it IMO. If you’re in the lower class, you’ll need to get creative (government assistance, co-living, etc).
you can just sell the supercar or downsize your house or whatever
You say that, but in many cases, they still end up net worth negative. The problem here isn’t with income, but spending, and you’re not going to sell your way out of a spending problem.
I think income divided by local cost-of-living could be, maybe.
Certainly. Economic classes are very much location-dependent. If you live in NYC or SF, you’d need to adjust the numbers a bit, likewise if you live in rural Mississippi or something. And there are calculators available online to help with that.
most people who are struggling financially are not in those situations
Pretty much everyone will say that though, because people are pretty bad at noticing the excesses in their own spending. If you’re not standing out as being “weird” for spending so little, then you’re probably “keeping up with the Joneses,” because the average American is pretty irresponsible.
This is a pretty broad brush stroke to be sure, and I’m sure there are plenty who are legitimately struggling despite a conscious effort to cut costs. I’m just saying that many, if not most, people who aren’t “financially stable” could make room in their budget to get financially stable, but instead end up throwing a ton of money down the drain due to interest.
Do you actually know anyone who’s in this situation?
In my experience, it’s not a choice they’ve made. Some people are bad with money, to be sure. I’m related to a few. But they don’t typically just decide they’re going to blow August’s grocery budget on a new wardrobe; they have a job opportunity dry up after they already moved for it, or they had a messy divorce because their spouse was abusive, or they poured a ton of money into some career training that turned out not to give them any real, marketable skills. Some bad choices, some unavoidable occurrences, some terrible luck, but nothing that crosses the line to them being frivolous.
Thirty years ago, a family could weather one or two of those, no problem. My dad got laid off not too long before I was born, and he was the sole earner for our family. He got hired fairly soon after, but in the meantime we were fine.
I don’t live a whole lot different than my parents did then. We have more kids than they did, but I’m in a higher earning potential career than he was. Plus, my wife and I are both employed. Yet if either of us were laid off, we would not last long on savings.
One thing I’ve learned as I get older: yeah, people are irresponsible. But the generations are pretty much the same, and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way to get clicks on your article but a bad way to actually get any meaningful insight about people. So if our generation is having more widespread problems than our parents’ generation did at this age, it’s probably not because we aren’t as responsible as they are. Something systemic probably changed.
Do you actually know anyone who’s in this situation?
Those I know personally
myself - parents paid my tuition, I paid everything else (rent, food, books, etc) by working through school making a little over minimum wage (I’m long past this stage)
close cousin - single income social worker w/ 4 kids; they own a house, and while they haven’t shared income info, they probably make median income or so and live a lower-middle to middle-class lifestyle
other cousins (not as close) - work in the trades (plumbing), drive trucks, teachers, etc
in-laws - immigrants w/ three kids who have lived in a 2BR apartment since moving here, never really getting ahead
Both sides of my family are generally fairly successful (middle class and upper middle class), with most of my cousins having completed a 4-year degree. My family is quite close, vacationing together almost every year, renting large houses in the middle of nowhere so we can spend time together (e.g. this year we had ~20 people in one house in nowhere Idaho).
My in-laws, however, are the opposite. My MIL completed a chef certification, but other than that, neither has completed formal education beyond K-12. They drive nicer cars, wear nicer clothes, and go to nicer restaurants than I ever did growing up (we thought the “cheap Chinese” place was a special treat). Both of them work, while I grew up in a single-income family. I don’t know details about their financial situation, and I’m honestly preparing our finances so we can support them when they can no longer supplement their SS income.
My family is largely quite successful (siblings are professor, accountant, actuary, and software engineer), I work in a field with a lot of successful people, and my neighbors are largely fairly successful (mostly middle middle class to upper middle class). That said, I’ve had neighbors have cars repossessed, coworkers struggle w/ credit card debt, and people making more than me struggle with a house down-payment (and I bought in my late 20s making much less than I do now), and the reason for each is pretty obvious from the outside (they spend way more than me on hobbies, cars, and other lifestyle items).
That said, I do admit I have limited personal experience with people in this situation. However, I personally choose to live like I’m a level below my means so I have a cushion in case something goes wrong. And one of my life goals is to leave my career early to actively help people with spending problems at all income levels to break that cycle, hence why I’m so interested in this.
they have a job opportunity dry up after they already moved for it, or they had a messy divorce because their spouse was abusive, or they poured a ton of money into some career training that turned out not to give them any real, marketable skills
At the risk of sounding callous, this sounds like symptoms of the same underlying problem: lack of diligence. And no, I’m not saying they didn’t “work hard enough” or they should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” I’m saying they could have mitigated these problems by making different decisions:
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Seneca
Breakdown of those problems you mentioned
job opportunity dry up - always have a backup plan; as The Money Guy host likes to say, make sure to include a “doo doo plan” in your projections (i.e. what you’ll do if the plan doesn’t work out)
messy divorce - don’t just marry for love, make sure your goals align and you truly know who you’re getting involved with; divorce can still happen, but you can usually avoid abusive people by listening to advice from family and friends (i.e. those who aren’t blinded by hormones)
career training - look at expected outcomes from whatever the training is, not just the handful of success stories; as in, don’t blindly trust what the people giving the training claim, verify it by looking at market data or asking someone in the business
I fully appreciate that many people don’t have the training or experience to avoid manipulation by others, which is a common thread here, so we absolutely need to improve our education system. But blaming others for your choices is a recipe for failure and isn’t going to help you move forward.
I have made my fair share of mistakes, some of them have cost me a lot. But I refuse to blame others and instead choose to point the finger back at myself, and I think that has made all the difference. And that’s what I’m getting at here: you can’t change your present, but you can make choices to change your future.
Thirty years ago, a family could weather one or two of those, no problem. My dad got laid off not too long before I was born, and he was the sole earner for our family. He got hired fairly soon after, but in the meantime we were fine.
Personal anecode about losing my job
And that’s the same today. I lost my job at the start of COVID right after my daughter was born (she was born in March, 2020, so we saw lockdowns come into effect while we were in the hospital). So I had a ton of medical expenses, few opportunities for work (I was a consultant at the time), and an uncertain economic future. But what I did have was 6-12 months expenses in cash. So we were fine, and it took me most of a year to find a new job because companies had frozen hiring (ended up w/ W-2 position because I couldn’t network due to lockdowns).
That set us back a couple of years, but we were already ahead because we were living below our means. Fast-forward to today and we’re back to being ahead because we continued to live below our means.
The authors found that household liabilities rose relative to income and real interest rates mostly declined from 1995 to 2010, which led them to suggest that an increase in loan supply relative to loan demand happened during that period.
I read this as: debt got cheaper, so people got more debt. So people are in more debt today, but they’re paying about the same to service that debt. So people are spending more than they used to, but they’re able to do that because borrowing rates are lower.
The solution, then, isn’t necessarily that people don’t have enough income, it’s that their expectations of what that income can buy is out of whack. In my experience, people largely paid for things w/ cash 30 years ago, whereas today paying with credit is a lot more common. People don’t save up to buy things as much, and instead buy now pay later. So the real issue here is discipline, at least for those in the middle class and above.
Something systemic probably changed.
My argument is that systemic change is access to credit, which has gotten a lot easier in the last 10-20 years where you can get a new CC or personal loan on your computer instead of actually having to go talk to someone at a bank. That means being irresponsible with money is easier, which I think encourages more people to do it.
So I do think younger generations (including my own, I’m a millennial) are more irresponsible with money and have higher expectations of what that money can buy than previous generations. Over the last 30+ years, real wages have increased consistently (i.e. after taking inflation into account), and we’re back to the peak of the early 70s before the stagflation of the 80s. Yet people claim we’re getting poorer, so I have to take that as people having unrealistic expectations instead of an income problem.
We make a decent amount, but we’re priced out of buying a home right now. We have a solid amount of savings and stocks, and our only debt is my partner’s student loans which aren’t a ton. We just don’t think about money day to day.
If we want something, we just get it. But we don’t really want things, so we mainly just spend money on food and booze. And Steam games, but only if they’re 50% off or more.
We’re probably lower-middle to middle-class. Lower now, maybe mid-mid when we finally can buy a house.
People who are proud of getting a good deal via an app break my heart. Most folks I know like that are not strapped for cash. They just like the feeling of getting a bargain. They don’t consider that the prices are artificially inflated.
Thats why Prime Day is such a big deal.
People think they are getting awesome deals cause its 50% off, are not going and checking price trackers to see the item had a HUGE price spike a week before Prime Day.
But they think they got 50% off and that gives them that massive dopamine rush, and that encourages more spending.
The Lowe’s app is actually really handy. You can look up any item and it will tell you the exact isle and bay it’s in for your store. No more wandering around or hunting for an employee to ask. It’s the only store app I actually keep on my phone.
People who are proud of getting a good deal via an app break my heart. Most folks I know like that are not strapped for cash. They just like the feeling of getting a bargain. They don’t consider that the prices are artificially inflated. They don’t need the sale item. And in the long run they’ll probably end up paying more when the stores know their purchasing habits and have A/B tested them enough to know how to provide as little as possible while charging as much as a customer can stomach.
If a coupon requires an app, I don’t by that item. Especially when it comes to groceries. When it comes to store cards, most let you use a phone number instead of scanning the card. So plug in a random number at checkout. You can often get a hit on the first try. Then pay in cash. Dirty up someone else’s data and give these stores nothing on you. Seriously, if people keep giving in, it’s guaranteed to get worse. First the store card, then the app, what’s next?
Whoa. What group do you run in? Literally everyone I talk to on a daily basis is.
I actually just thought through an average day, and the people I talk to regularly. I’ve had conversations with each and every one of them over the past few months about how we’ve had to make major changes to our lifestyles in one way or another because the money is going out faster than it’s coming in. We’re all solidly middle-class, for whatever that means anymore.
So what circles are you in where not everyone is looking for every possible discount they can get? Saving $5 on groceries means I can afford another gallon and a half of gas. I can’t afford to be principled about privacy when those are the stakes. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I think age / location / profession have a lot to do with what socioeconomic circles people run in.
Not to mention luck of the draw.
For sure, but like…I’m a middle-aged software engineer in a low cost-of-living area. My parents always had enough on one income, but we’re struggling on two.
I’m similar, but probably a bit younger. I make a good salary now (I’m in a leadership position), but the people on my team are a bit more “average.” Software engineering will have a higher than average salary, but I’m talking $80-120k for the people who work for me in an area where the median income is $70-80k ($80-120k), and most are single or single-income.
There’s a pretty stark difference between those who are financially stable and those who… aren’t. I don’t have everyone’s salary, but here’s what I see:
Notice I didn’t say anything about income. Some of the financially unstable people have a much higher income (probably double the range above), and some of the financially stable people have a much lower income (e.g. one of my employees is single and just bought a house in a pricier area, while being at the bottom of the income range).
I obviously don’t know your income or situation, but I think most people can do much better than they are without changing their income. And the more financially stable you can be, the more “quiet” confidence you get (i.e. you’re not distracted by when payday is), and the more likely you are to get that promotion or better paying job. Success tends to breed success.
Check out The Millionaire Next Door, which gives lots of examples about how wealthy people tend to be frugal and careful with money. There’s not really any secret sauce here, just delayed gratification and discipline. Obviously a $100k salary will go a bit further than a $50k salary, but even a median income can rocket you to an upper-middle class/lower-upper class retirement if you manage it carefully. I’m happy to walk through a scenario if you like, but that’s a bit off-topic for this community and is probably better for one of the PF communities.
I have a rule of thumb for financial stability.
Level 1 - just buy groceries and pay for them without stressing
Level 2 - don’t worry about when payday hits
Level 3 - don’t worry about getting laid off
That makes a ton of sense. To add some numbers to it:
Getting to step 1 can be very difficult, especially for the lower class, but $10 or $20 at a time can get there. But it needs to be intentional, and that’s really hard when working two (or three) jobs, so many just don’t put in the consistent effort needed to get there. But once that first buffer is there, the rest becomes a lot easier since you’re no longer getting pushed backwards.
I disagree strongly that $1k is enough for any one emergency. My healthcare deductible is higher than that. The last two times I’ve needed car repairs, the bill was $2-3k to get the thing back on the road. If one of our appliances breaks down, we might be able to replace it for $1,000 if it’s the dryer or the dishwasher, but if it’s the fridge, that’s not close to enough.
$1,000 was plenty when I was in college back in the mid-00s, but I was single with no kids. That’s just not a realistic emergency fund in 2024, and even less so if you have a family.
I never said it would definitely cover all emergencies, but it should cover most emergencies. For example:
It’s not going to solve everything, but it’s a nice milestone that means you can weather most emergencies, provided they come one at a time. The goal here isn’t to guarantee that you’re safe from everything (nobody should stop at this step), but to protect you from most of the small things that would otherwise go to debt.
If we raise the bar too high, people will get discouraged and give up. $1k is a pretty decent goal and can do a lot of good.
And it fucking SUCKS in the beginning, because for a very long time it keeps getting wiped out by emergencies. But the more emergencies you weather, eventually the fewer you’ll have, and your buffer will grow.
Emergency funds are the most important tool for financial stability (after securing a living wage).
Exactly. Just take solace in knowing that each emergency that wipes out your e-fund could have been devastating debt, and the e-fund is doing its job.
Honestly, what you see isn’t familiar to me at all. The people I know are very good at being frugal and wringing the last out of every dime, not being extravagant or frivolous, etc. We have no car payment on our ten-year-old minivan, own our home, and haven’t been clothes shopping in years except to replace things that wear out, that sort of thing.
The problem isn’t budgeting; we have a budget, and we stick to it pretty well. There are very few things we could cut, and doing so might save us a hundred or so dollars per month. The problem is that inflation has eaten up every dollar from my paycheck we used to have in surplus. The problem is that my salary hasn’t kept up with inflation and nobody else around here is hiring.
Yes, you can budget yourself from the top of one financial class into the bottom of another one; and you can manage money poorly enough to drop from anywhere to the bottom of the heap. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is a significant financial crunch happening for most people in the world right now.
Seems like everyone has their own preferred explanation as to why that’s happening (corporate greed vs. government overreach), but the fact that it’s happening seems pretty clear.
Yes, that certainly is a problem. Salary increases tend to lag inflation a bit, so you’d either need to switch jobs or wait to get caught up.
That said, wage growth has exceeded inflation for the last year and a half or so, so hopefully you’ll get a yearly salary bump to help out. Our salary bump was higher than usual last year (about 5%), but still below inflation (8-9%), and I hope our salary bump this year will fix that (4% would be enough to catch back up).
But the fact that you’ve been able to stay financially stable despite high inflation means you’re probably closer to “The Millionaire Next Door” than the average Joe drowning in credit card debt. If you can stay out of debt and put money away for retirement every month, you’ll be doing fine in your 60s when you’re looking at retirement.
Sure, if you follow the average advice (save 10%), then yeah, one bump-up is essentially expected. But if you’re more aggressive, jumping up more than one level should be feasible.
This video talks about economic classes, and the portion I linked shows how you can go from $65k/year salary (middle middle class) to lower upper class by age 50 by just investing 10% of your income. So this is essentially middle middle-class to lower-upper class. If you do 40 years instead of stopping at 50, you’d have $3M by retirement age. If we account for 2% inflation, you’d have about $1.7M in today’s dollars, which is almost to upper upper class. If you bump to 15% of your income, you end up with $2.6M after taking inflation into account, which is in that upper upper class range. So with just a median household salary, you can have an upper upper class retirement.
My circle of friends are also not strapped for cash. I’m confused as to how that’s so baffling to you. We’re very much NOT upper class.
I kinda think that not being strapped for cash is being upper-class.
Upper-class: Always having enough
Middle-class: Always having almost enough
Lower-class: Never having enough
“Class” is determined by income, “enough” is determined by spending habits. You could make $50k and have positive cash flow, or you could make $400k and always be strapped for cash. The higher your income is, the more options you have, but also the more exposure you have to more ways to waste your money.
This is a great video about this. Basically:
At each level, I see two types of people:
By this metric, not being strapped for cash is possible for pretty much anyone in the lower-middle class and above, and even those in the lower class could get there by stabilizing their finances so they can take some risks to increase their income (i.e. night school, quitting a bad job for a better job, getting CDL and financing a truck, etc). On the flipside, being strapped for cash is also quite possible at pretty much any income level, and I’ve heard plenty of stories about lawyers and doctors having trouble keeping up with debt payments because they got caught trying to keep up with those wealthier than them.
So I don’t think “strapped for cash” is a good metric for economic class, income is, because you can make choices that can cause you to be paycheck-to-paycheck at almost any income level, as well as choices to maintain stability at almost any income level.
Add the 1% there. Generational wealth people. Private jets, multiple mansion homes, etc. They’re far above the upper class. Totally different plane of existence from everyone else.
It’s easy to say “stabilize your finances!” but on a practical level it’s almost impossible to do when there’s no wiggle room. You can’t stabilize any finances if you’re taking out payday loans in order to pay rent every month. It’s not like there’s any money to be put into savings if you’re making $2,000 a month but putting $1,000 toward rent, since most people rather like to eat.
I’m thankful to not be in that situation, personally, but it’s not something you can just wish your way out of. Even your examples require a certain level of financial breathing room that people don’t tend to have when every dollar is spoken for. You can’t finance a truck if your DTI is already high. You can’t take CDL training or night school if you have to work two jobs just to keep food on the table.
But if you get into that scenario, you can just sell the supercar or downsize your house or whatever. That’s not really an option for people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
I think income divided by local cost-of-living could be, maybe.
At the end of the day, irresponsibility with money is still a problem for sure. And keeping-up-with-the-joneses is probably a problem for some people. I’m not one of them, and none of the people I know are either, but I suppose some people have that issue. In my experience, though, most people who are struggling financially are not in those situations. They’re just trying to keep their heads above water.
Oh, I 100% agree. But in many cases, taking payday loans is a symptom of other serious problems in someone’s spending patterns and not necessarily an income problem. Maybe the car payment is too high, or perhaps they’re paying too much for food. Whatever it is, that needs to get fixed to end the need for emergency cash.
If you’re in the lower middle class or higher, there’s no excuse for it IMO. If you’re in the lower class, you’ll need to get creative (government assistance, co-living, etc).
You say that, but in many cases, they still end up net worth negative. The problem here isn’t with income, but spending, and you’re not going to sell your way out of a spending problem.
Certainly. Economic classes are very much location-dependent. If you live in NYC or SF, you’d need to adjust the numbers a bit, likewise if you live in rural Mississippi or something. And there are calculators available online to help with that.
Pretty much everyone will say that though, because people are pretty bad at noticing the excesses in their own spending. If you’re not standing out as being “weird” for spending so little, then you’re probably “keeping up with the Joneses,” because the average American is pretty irresponsible.
This is a pretty broad brush stroke to be sure, and I’m sure there are plenty who are legitimately struggling despite a conscious effort to cut costs. I’m just saying that many, if not most, people who aren’t “financially stable” could make room in their budget to get financially stable, but instead end up throwing a ton of money down the drain due to interest.
Do you actually know anyone who’s in this situation?
In my experience, it’s not a choice they’ve made. Some people are bad with money, to be sure. I’m related to a few. But they don’t typically just decide they’re going to blow August’s grocery budget on a new wardrobe; they have a job opportunity dry up after they already moved for it, or they had a messy divorce because their spouse was abusive, or they poured a ton of money into some career training that turned out not to give them any real, marketable skills. Some bad choices, some unavoidable occurrences, some terrible luck, but nothing that crosses the line to them being frivolous.
Thirty years ago, a family could weather one or two of those, no problem. My dad got laid off not too long before I was born, and he was the sole earner for our family. He got hired fairly soon after, but in the meantime we were fine.
I don’t live a whole lot different than my parents did then. We have more kids than they did, but I’m in a higher earning potential career than he was. Plus, my wife and I are both employed. Yet if either of us were laid off, we would not last long on savings.
One thing I’ve learned as I get older: yeah, people are irresponsible. But the generations are pretty much the same, and trying to pretend otherwise is a good way to get clicks on your article but a bad way to actually get any meaningful insight about people. So if our generation is having more widespread problems than our parents’ generation did at this age, it’s probably not because we aren’t as responsible as they are. Something systemic probably changed.
Those I know personally
Both sides of my family are generally fairly successful (middle class and upper middle class), with most of my cousins having completed a 4-year degree. My family is quite close, vacationing together almost every year, renting large houses in the middle of nowhere so we can spend time together (e.g. this year we had ~20 people in one house in nowhere Idaho).
My in-laws, however, are the opposite. My MIL completed a chef certification, but other than that, neither has completed formal education beyond K-12. They drive nicer cars, wear nicer clothes, and go to nicer restaurants than I ever did growing up (we thought the “cheap Chinese” place was a special treat). Both of them work, while I grew up in a single-income family. I don’t know details about their financial situation, and I’m honestly preparing our finances so we can support them when they can no longer supplement their SS income.
My family is largely quite successful (siblings are professor, accountant, actuary, and software engineer), I work in a field with a lot of successful people, and my neighbors are largely fairly successful (mostly middle middle class to upper middle class). That said, I’ve had neighbors have cars repossessed, coworkers struggle w/ credit card debt, and people making more than me struggle with a house down-payment (and I bought in my late 20s making much less than I do now), and the reason for each is pretty obvious from the outside (they spend way more than me on hobbies, cars, and other lifestyle items).
That said, I do admit I have limited personal experience with people in this situation. However, I personally choose to live like I’m a level below my means so I have a cushion in case something goes wrong. And one of my life goals is to leave my career early to actively help people with spending problems at all income levels to break that cycle, hence why I’m so interested in this.
At the risk of sounding callous, this sounds like symptoms of the same underlying problem: lack of diligence. And no, I’m not saying they didn’t “work hard enough” or they should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” I’m saying they could have mitigated these problems by making different decisions:
Breakdown of those problems you mentioned
I fully appreciate that many people don’t have the training or experience to avoid manipulation by others, which is a common thread here, so we absolutely need to improve our education system. But blaming others for your choices is a recipe for failure and isn’t going to help you move forward.
I have made my fair share of mistakes, some of them have cost me a lot. But I refuse to blame others and instead choose to point the finger back at myself, and I think that has made all the difference. And that’s what I’m getting at here: you can’t change your present, but you can make choices to change your future.
Personal anecode about losing my job
And that’s the same today. I lost my job at the start of COVID right after my daughter was born (she was born in March, 2020, so we saw lockdowns come into effect while we were in the hospital). So I had a ton of medical expenses, few opportunities for work (I was a consultant at the time), and an uncertain economic future. But what I did have was 6-12 months expenses in cash. So we were fine, and it took me most of a year to find a new job because companies had frozen hiring (ended up w/ W-2 position because I couldn’t network due to lockdowns).
That set us back a couple of years, but we were already ahead because we were living below our means. Fast-forward to today and we’re back to being ahead because we continued to live below our means.
Here’s an interesting article about household debt over time, which goes back to 1995 (so almost 30 years). A quote:
I read this as: debt got cheaper, so people got more debt. So people are in more debt today, but they’re paying about the same to service that debt. So people are spending more than they used to, but they’re able to do that because borrowing rates are lower.
The solution, then, isn’t necessarily that people don’t have enough income, it’s that their expectations of what that income can buy is out of whack. In my experience, people largely paid for things w/ cash 30 years ago, whereas today paying with credit is a lot more common. People don’t save up to buy things as much, and instead buy now pay later. So the real issue here is discipline, at least for those in the middle class and above.
My argument is that systemic change is access to credit, which has gotten a lot easier in the last 10-20 years where you can get a new CC or personal loan on your computer instead of actually having to go talk to someone at a bank. That means being irresponsible with money is easier, which I think encourages more people to do it.
So I do think younger generations (including my own, I’m a millennial) are more irresponsible with money and have higher expectations of what that money can buy than previous generations. Over the last 30+ years, real wages have increased consistently (i.e. after taking inflation into account), and we’re back to the peak of the early 70s before the stagflation of the 80s. Yet people claim we’re getting poorer, so I have to take that as people having unrealistic expectations instead of an income problem.
sugar summed it up nicely.
We make a decent amount, but we’re priced out of buying a home right now. We have a solid amount of savings and stocks, and our only debt is my partner’s student loans which aren’t a ton. We just don’t think about money day to day.
If we want something, we just get it. But we don’t really want things, so we mainly just spend money on food and booze. And Steam games, but only if they’re 50% off or more.
We’re probably lower-middle to middle-class. Lower now, maybe mid-mid when we finally can buy a house.
Thats why Prime Day is such a big deal.
People think they are getting awesome deals cause its 50% off, are not going and checking price trackers to see the item had a HUGE price spike a week before Prime Day.
But they think they got 50% off and that gives them that massive dopamine rush, and that encourages more spending.
The Lowe’s app is actually really handy. You can look up any item and it will tell you the exact isle and bay it’s in for your store. No more wandering around or hunting for an employee to ask. It’s the only store app I actually keep on my phone.
The point is it’s bullshit that’s not available on the Lowes website.
It actually is available on the website, but like most stores their mobile web experience isn’t great.